# Monte2 Advice



## Lamar (Dec 12, 1997)

I am down to the wire on Father's Day and it is now decision time as to what makes the list. 

Here's my question:
If the Monte2 is so off as of late, why does it remain at the peak of the Top25 charts?


----------



## Matt R (Dec 12, 1997)

Monte 2's are produced in large quanities which lend to them having problems. This is why you will see many of them have a 10/10 rating or many have a 3/10 (no havana gets less than a 3 in my book LMAO). The recent ones I have had, June 2000, have been great smokes, though their appearance could be better. I have heard even newer ones are good too. It's a hit or miss with all Habanos these days anyway.


Hey, I've never tried one of those before. ;-)


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2001)

I bought some (Nov 2000) recently and Had smoked 2 so far. They are not too bad. They look fine in appearance with mid-brown shades. They taste the true Monte flavor but kind of young. Pleasant aroma throughout and draw was no concern. The burning was causing problems though, slightly uneven and partly unburnable from midway down. I think they need to be rested for at least another 10 months or so to be conditioned. 

They are popular because they are supposed to be the benchmark of Cuban Torpedos.


----------



## sgoselin (Dec 12, 1997)

I think the Monte 2 has been very on lately. I have a box from 10/00 and 1/01 and they are both outstanding. Dark, oily, great construction. Certainly a little young, but a lot of promise. Still one of the great Havanas IMHO. 

I am what I am.


----------



## funkymunky (Jan 1, 2000)

IMO I don't think the monte 2 is "off" right now, I have smoked some recent production stuff and it has been pretty good. But I have never had a "older" one to compare it to either!


----------



## poker (Dec 11, 1997)

pre 96' Monte 2's are to die for


http://www.habanossa.com/imagewww/unicos.gif


----------



## SteveK (Jan 1, 2000)

I must say thatmy "theory" on the MOnte 2 has changed. I have been smoking a lot of monte 2's lately, mainly because I am wondering about the hype surrounding their lack of quality of late. What I think it comes down to is that they are not very good young. I have had a bunch from 1999/2000 and even 2001 that were off, but anything before that was great. I know some enjoy young smokes, and I even think some smokes are god young, but IMHO the MOnte 2 is not one of them. So, I am going to buy a couple boxes while I am over here and Iam going to let them sit for a couple years, and I am confident that they will be good later on.


----------



## Justso (Dec 12, 1997)

I find that a lot of people judge Monte's at a young age. Like my buddy, he got a box of 3/01 Monte 2's and had 4 of them and said they are bad. I commenced to tell him to give them to me since he didn't like them ;-), but I really told him they need to age. I had a Monte #2 from 1997 and it was ecstasy. The aroma was enough to make my eyes water. Man, it was awesome. The key is, if you can resist, age them as long as you possibly can and they will NEVER let you down. If you want to know why Cigar Aficianado and Top 25 Cigar ranks the Monte #2 as one of the top smokes around, it because it is one of the best smokes ever and is the true Havana taste. Even the Dominican Montecristos are among the finest cigars in the world. I had a Dominican Monte #2 from 1998 and it was amazing! If you can control yourself enough to age the ISOM #2's, then you will NOT be disappointed. I promise!

-Justin
"If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two impostors just the same." -Rudyard Kipling


----------



## LuckiLeo (Jan 1, 2000)

I tried my first monte 2, 2 years ago, when i was, much like yourself, an ISOM cigar virgin, and i can without doubt say that it was one of the best and most powerful cigars i have ever tried. Since, there have been bad ones and good ones (bad mainly due to their youth, hence harsh), but IMO they remain a great cigar. Just make sure you are dont have to move from your armchair for a while after you do one of these babies  Believe me many have tried and failed.


----------



## Lamar (Dec 12, 1997)

*WHOA*


----------



## The Professor (Jul 20, 2006)

*Re: WHOA*

thought I tried my first monte 2 tonight ... turns out it was an upmann. go figure.

jaibería.
<friday night skype herf>


----------



## j6ppc (Jun 5, 2006)

Zeitgeist


----------



## Mark THS (Feb 5, 2007)

This thread is quite a blast from the past


----------



## Harpo (Oct 11, 2007)

Mark THS said:


> This thread is quite a blast from the past


I was about to say the same thing!

Bump. :r


----------



## burninator (Jul 11, 2006)

It is what it is.


----------



## bolio (Sep 19, 2007)

whatever happened to these guys?:r


----------



## RenoB (Oct 12, 2005)

*Re: WHOA*



The Professor said:


> thought I tried my first monte 2 tonight ... turns out it was an upmann. go figure.
> 
> jaibería.
> <friday night skype herf>


And what were you drinking with that ~d? :r


----------



## The Professor (Jul 20, 2006)

bolio said:


> whatever happened to these guys?:r


if you look at their profiles, you'll see many of them have been on pretty recently. it looks like some haven't been on since "the crash" of '05.


RenoB said:


> And what were you drinking with that ~d? :r


with that? barley wine. :tu


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

bolio said:


> whatever happened to these guys?:r


if you notice the first 9 or so posts consisted of first the "question", followed by a handful of "helpful replies".

contrast that with what happened after the professor bumped the thread.
now there are how many posts after his and not a single one is actually helpful to anyone in any way.

_THAT_ could be why most of these guys don't post. they can't get a HELPFUL word in edgewise.

it's amazing that we have thousands more members now and probably 50x less knowledgeable cigar talk.

:2

sorry if you feel that's being "mean", try reading it in a "matter of fact" kinda way. you asked, i answered.


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

IHT said:


> if you notice the first 9 or so posts consisted of first the "question", followed by a handful of "helpful replies".
> 
> contrast that with what happened after the professor bumped the thread.
> now there are how many posts after his and not a single one is actually helpful to anyone in any way.
> ...


let me just say this. I think sometimes we all need something to allow us to feel just a little better. Here's my contribution.






ATL


----------



## Navydoc (Jan 26, 2005)

I have to post a helpful reply here just because of Greg's post.... IMHO Monte 2's have always been inferior to Upmann 2's. Monte's in general take 5+ years to really go anywhere. Even ones from the late 90's are still in need of development. I have over 5000+ cigars in my small collection...do you know how many Monte 2's I have? Less than a box if I'm lucky! OK, except for the 80's Dunhill Select Monte 2's. For me these are what Monte 2's should develop into. :2


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

Navydoc said:


> I have to post a helpful reply here just because of Greg's post.... IMHO Monte 2's have always been inferior to Upmann 2's. Monte's in general take 5+ years to really go anywhere. Even ones from the late 90's are still in need of development. I have over 5000+ cigars in my small collection...do you know how many Monte 2's I have? Less than a box if I'm lucky! OK, except for the 80's Dunhill Select Monte 2's. For me these are what Monte 2's should develop into. :2


Agreed,

Upmann No.2's rule! I have smoked numerous Monte 2's over the year and can only say that about a handful of them were truly exceptional. I have gone through about 3 boxes of Upmann No.2's and just about every single one is pure pleasure. No offense to the Monte 2 fans out there, but I myself have not seen them as a truly tremendous cigar.........ever. IMHO you can do a whole lot better for alot less money.:2

ATL


----------



## burninator (Jul 11, 2006)

I haven't tried either, but to me, the Monte profile just doesn't impress me. I am, however, glad to hear that the Monte 2's are back on track, for those who enjoy them.


----------



## Simplified (Feb 18, 2006)

I have some from 01 and it is cool to see what people thought about them ROTT. I enjoy them and have smoked my box down to just five over the last year. 

Funny thing is, I have not added any to my collection in the last two years of buying. So either my subconscious or conscious is telling me there are better ways to spend the money.


----------



## Bigwaved (May 20, 2006)

Why people are inclined to post or not is an interesting topic which I discuss on and off with other gorillas, but as far as this topic goes, a thread was started short time ago which seems to fit in with this one as it has evolved today.

_*Monte No. 2 vs. Dip No. 2.*_

I do not know how the side by side by side went because I was too sick to smoke that night, but they had a Monte No. 2, an H. Upmann No. 2, a Dip No. 2 and a PSP No. 2 to compare to each other.


----------



## pnoon (Jun 8, 2005)

IHT said:


> if you notice the first 9 or so posts consisted of first the "question", followed by a handful of "helpful replies".
> 
> contrast that with what happened after the professor bumped the thread.
> now there are how many posts after his and not a single one is actually helpful to anyone in any way.
> ...


:tpd:
Which is why newer members are advised to "Read more. Post less." Many, unfortunately, never understand.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

Navydoc said:


> I have to post a helpful reply here just because of Greg's post....


:r
well, the guy asked a question, i answered as another forum member could. 
some ppl may have taken offense to it, that wasn't the intent and i didn't "type" it in a mean tone. the internet sucks that you just can't say what needs to be said without someone (or a lot of ppl) taking it the wrong way.
i answered the dudes question, the topic was started with 1 _educated_ question (he did his research first) followed by 8 helpful replies. darrel bumped it, which i don't have a problem with at all, sorry he took it that way, and then it's the standard group of 1-liner posters that have nothing to do with the topic.
i just deleted about 4 more paragraphs - don't want to waste anyones time or take away from this topic any more. i'm out.


----------



## Sandman (Mar 26, 2006)

The box of Monte #2's that I have from 06 is a very special batch. I have never been a huge Monte fan, but these are just beautiful, rich, strong, dark, with a citrus twist cigars. Yum, yum.


----------



## mosesbotbol (Sep 21, 2005)

With Monte 2's, I like to inspect the box before buying. I find that if they look the part, they smoke the part. I like to see rich medium dark wrappers, all even shade, and perfect construction. Sometimes they have a dull wrapper and I stay away. If you have to buy mail order, have your vendor inspect them before and be made known your concerns. The newer the box code, the less I would worry as Habanos seem to be hitting home runs on everything the last couple of years.


----------



## Fredster (Jan 26, 2004)

Navydoc said:


> I have to post a helpful reply here just because of Greg's post.... IMHO Monte 2's have always been inferior to Upmann 2's. Monte's in general take 5+ years to really go anywhere. Even ones from the late 90's are still in need of development. I have over 5000+ cigars in my small collection...do you know how many Monte 2's I have? Less than a box if I'm lucky! OK, except for the 80's Dunhill Select Monte 2's. For me these are what Monte 2's should develop into. :2


Agree 100%. I have 2000 or so  cigars and I have only a couple boxes of 2000 Monte 2's that still are not ready IMO. I do have some from the 80's also that are quite good.


----------



## Sandman (Mar 26, 2006)

Fredster said:


> Agree 100%. I have 2000 or so  cigars and I have only a couple boxes of 2000 Monte 2's that still are not ready IMO. I do have some from the 80's also that are quite good.


Fredster, buy some new production, I believe you will find these ready to smoke.


----------



## thebiglebowski (Dec 19, 2005)

Mark THS said:


> This thread is quite a blast from the past


no $hit! how'd that upmannn taste?


----------



## bolio (Sep 19, 2007)

no prob sir.


----------



## adsantos13 (Oct 10, 2006)

Sandman said:


> The box of Monte #2's that I have from 06 is a very special batch. I have never been a huge Monte fan, but these are just beautiful, rich, strong, dark, with a citrus twist cigars. Yum, yum.


You gifted me a Monte #2 a while back and it was fantastic, probably one of the best Ive ever smoked. Dunno if it was from this same batch or not but damn I didnt want it to end!

That being said, I am a huge fan of the Monte profile in general so maybe Im biased a bit but I have enjoyed most of the #2's I've smoked. I find about 2 out of 10 on average have a bad flavor or a constructions issue, of course, that could just be an issue with their relative youth (Ive never smoked a seriously aged Monte). Because I love that flavor, I am willing to deal with it.


----------



## cigarflip (Jul 4, 2004)

Fredster said:


> Agree 100%. I have 2000 or so  cigars and I have only a couple boxes of 2000 Monte 2's that still are not ready IMO. I do have some from the 80's also that are quite good.


Don't have many cigars but I'm a Monte whore. Aside from the Especiales and Joyitas, Monte 2s are always a favorite. I have some from the 80s, 90s, 01,03 and prolly 10 boxes of 06s. My take is that the Monte 2s take a lot of time to age but when they do, it worth the wait. A couple of years ago, I smoked a 97 MC2 and a 96 HU2 side by side. The Monte is so much better.


----------



## Linder (Nov 8, 2006)

cigarflip said:


> Don't have many cigars [...] I have some from the 80s, 90s, 01,03 and prolly 10 boxes of 06s


LOLOL :r


----------



## boonedoggle (Jun 23, 2006)

My father in law gave me two of these to put in my humi so we can smoke em in the spring. He said one of his friends at the club picked em up while he was in Mexico. I didn't want to hurt his feelings or anything, but I thought that it is unlikely that these are authentic, but the physical appearance seems to be strong. When we do fire them up, I'll smoke it, then unroll it to see if it has chop. Then I'll have the proof!


----------



## Bigwaved (May 20, 2006)

Linder said:


> LOLOL :r


It is all relative, as they say.


----------



## Fredster (Jan 26, 2004)

cigarflip said:


> Don't have many cigars but I'm a Monte whore. Aside from the Especiales and Joyitas, Monte 2s are always a favorite. I have some from the 80s, 90s, 01,03 and prolly 10 boxes of 06s. My take is that the Monte 2s take a lot of time to age but when they do, it worth the wait. A couple of years ago, I smoked a 97 MC2 and a 96 HU2 side by side. The Monte is so much better.


You don't have many cigars?  Good one bro. You probably have more Monte Especials than my whole collection.:tu


----------



## Fredster (Jan 26, 2004)

Sandman said:


> Fredster, buy some new production, I believe you will find these ready to smoke.


Don't smoke much new at all. I did grab some early 06 Monte Edmundos that are pretty good for a new smoke. Once I smoked an old Monte #2 I didn't want the fresh ones any more.:hn


----------



## cigarflip (Jul 4, 2004)

Fredster said:


> You don't have many cigars?  Good one bro. You probably have more Monte Especials than my whole collection.:tu


Not compared to a lot of the brothers here. Smoked an 01 Monte2 today. It's coming around!


----------



## chibnkr (May 2, 2007)

Fredster said:


> Once I smoked an old Monte #2 I didn't want the fresh ones any more.:hn


I hear that! Though those Nov/Dec 2000s are really starting to come around!


----------



## LasciviousXXX (Oct 12, 2004)

Fredster said:


> Once I smoked an old Monte #2 I didn't want the fresh ones any more.:hn


Couldn't agree more my brother!! Once you taste a vintage Montecristo smoking the new ones seem to be almost a crime 

Love the 80's Especials and Monte 2's. I like them better than the 70's ones I've sampled. However I might have to try and get my hands on some of the 70's #5's I keep hearing so much about LOL


----------



## Fredster (Jan 26, 2004)

chibnkr said:


> I hear that! Though those Nov/Dec 2000s are really starting to come around!


I'll have to try one of the 2000's again. It's been about 8 months since I had one last.


----------

